Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[Anti-K]

Killers use the knives of the home because it prevents any of their own weapons from being tied to them.

Not the case in pen and paper because your handwriting will incriminate you more than the style of paper and pen you use. That's why the old cut and paste letters is so popular in kidnapping.


It's not a matter of having pen and paper it's the matter of planning your action and coming up with a letter that leaves no evidence in a place that you feel safe. The Ramsey house is not a safe place...because someone like the housemaid or JAR could come back at any moment. Hell the Ramsey's could leave the party at any moment. Plus why do you need to enter the house when nobody is there when you have no problem with people being in the house while killing her?

Obviously, the killer felt “safe.” Or, at least, he as willing to take the risk. Some folks are just like that.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

Obviously, the killer felt “safe.” Or, at least, he as willing to take the risk. Some folks are just like that.
...

AK

None of the things that were done needed to be done in the house. The only reason for him to be safe in the house...was that he knew if he got caught, he would have an excuse for being there. Like a housekeeper for example.

He could have “stalked” the Ramseys. He could have learned a fair bit simply by watching the house. He could have entered it days or weeks ahead of time. He could have entered it while the Ramseys were out during the day and spent hours poking around.

The information needed to acquire this much knowledge of the house and the Ramsey's routine would require more than stalking & B&E. You practically would need a wiretap.

If RDI, the Ramseys would have to worry about linguistic/handwriting and materials used being traced back to them. Forensics would find them out.

That's up to the lead detective to determine if that is warranted. If he believes the Ramseys story and clears them. It could be weeks before a handwriting analysis is done.

Anti-K - as good as all this speculation is... eventually you have to catch the suspect. If you are right...how do we catch this intruder?? That's the advantage the RDI's have over IDI's. They have their suspect. The IDI's have none.

 

[THE BUNK]

You said:

"He would have to BE one of their circle of friends in order to have this level of knowledge of the house and family. I would argue he would have to be at the Fleet White level of friendship to know this much." ​

What level of knowledge? How much is "this much"? I don't agree that the perp would have to be in the Ramseys immediate cirlce, and I don't believe it's likely he was "close" to the Ramseys at all.

Too many to list, but I will give you a few.

To know that the Ramsey's would be away during the day on 26th and would be at home during the night. Especially since they were set to depart afterwards. That is a narrow window!
To know that the Ramsey's are from Atlanta originally.
To know that there would be no dog at the residence.
To know that John Ramsey had $118,000 bonus.
To know that JAR would not be home this
To know that Burke Ramsey kept a knife hidden.
To know that Patsy came down that particular flight of stairs...
..etc.
To be able to find that basement in the first place and know there was a paintbrush for the garrotte.

"The only reason for him to enter the house before the Ramsey's arrive is to write the ransom letter. That's it. If he has it in his mind that he is willing to risk running into the Ramsey's then he can wait till they get back to commit the break-in. There is no logic advantage he has to breaking into the house earlier than he needs to."​

Logic? Are you able to rationalize many elements of this case? These weren't the actions of a sensible, logical mind...

Ah, the "He did it because he was crazy" argument. The fallback of many inconsistent theories.
Just because your psychopath doesn't mean your not capable of discovering the best way to accomplish your tasks.

 

[THE BUNK]

You know here is the thing about the IDI theory.

I'm willing to keep an open mind about the theory.

But the IDI's have to produce a suspect or a line of investigation at somepoint.

The IDI's have to give a reason for the public to believe that they are not solely interesting in defending the Ramsey's. They have to provide a legitimate lead.

The best they could come up with was Michael Helgoth and John Mark Karr. Two people who never should have been suspects to begin with.

An investigation needs to move. It needs to have a line of investigation. A suspect to investigate.

Give us one!!

That's actually what I was looking for in this thread. A legitimate suspect or line of investigation that could be looked into along with looking into the RDI thread.

Contrary to popular believe, an investigator can multitask. You can look into IDI and still follow the RDI case.
But to properly follow IDI...there needs to be a lead or suspect at some point. Hell even the Jack the Ripper case has suspects. Where are the legitimate IDI suspects in this case.

 

[Chewy]

What other reason other than to write the ransom note beforehand could the killer have to enter the house early? What other task did he have to accomplish that couldn't be done outside of the house?

These are the kind of assumptions that bother me. Just because WE can't think of a reason doesn't mean there wasn't a reason.

However, it could be that the person entered the house to rob them after they left the house. What easier way could there be to rob a house than to enter during a Christmas open house and linger around and sneak down to the basement to hide.

Then the family leaves and they can casually look through the house instead of breaking in not knowing if the family was home or when they were returning. If someone is getting dressed up to go to dinner they will definitely be out for an hour or two.

Christmas time is a RIFE for burglaries. Everyone knows this, I mean come on didn't you see Home Alone? LOL December is the third highest month of the year for burglaries. The highest being summer when families go on vacation.

Now say the burglar is in the house and looks around John's desk for a safe and sees the receipt for the $118000 and thinks, wow I bet I could get him to pay that, it's a drop in the bucket for a guy like him.

He decides to subdue Jonbenet and then try to get the ransom but he winds up killing her. Why is that such a hard thing to consider?

 

[Chewy]

You know here is the thing about the IDI theory.

I'm willing to keep an open mind about the theory.

But the IDI's have to produce a suspect or a line of investigation at somepoint.

The IDI's have to give a reason for the public to believe that they are not solely interesting in defending the Ramsey's. They have to provide a legitimate lead.

The best they could come up with was Michael Helgoth and John Mark Karr. Two people who never should have been suspects to begin with.

An investigation needs to move. It needs to have a line of investigation. A suspect to investigate.

Give us one!!

That's actually what I was looking for in this thread. A legitimate suspect or line of investigation that could be looked into along with looking into the RDI thread.

Contrary to popular believe, an investigator can multitask. You can look into IDI and still follow the RDI case.
But to properly follow IDI...there needs to be a lead or suspect at some point. Hell even the Jack the Ripper case has suspects. Where are the legitimate IDI suspects in this case.

Considering we're not allowed to "Sleuth" anyone by name, it's hard to try to point out suspects. In my opinion the couple that "heard the scream" raises a HUGE red flag to me.

First of all, they lived near by and were close enough to the family to know their plans etc. They probably came during the open house. And they both claimed to have heard something that night and then turned around and changed their story later. Whenever I've seen cold case crimes solved years later the cops usually corner someone because they changed their story.

Why would you BOTH have had the same story and then BOTH changed it. It's very odd to me that people don't realize that by saying they heard something from the house they are in essence giving themselves a false alibi. If they were in their house hearing these noises, they couldn't have been making those noises? Capisce?

What also is interesting is that if this was a real attempted kidnapping, then the perps would need to be able to get in and out of the house undetected and also get Jonbenet away without being noticed. If they planned to take her to their house, it makes sense.

In addition there's always the question of why Jonbenet was killed. If she was able to recognize her abductors then they would have had to kill her.

Some of the comments in the note reek of envy. Who better to envy the Ramseys and mock John for thinking he was the "only fat cat" than neighbors.

I can't believe these two were not really closely investigated. Especially since no one else heard the scream.

 

[Chewy]

Too many to list, but I will give you a few.

To know that the Ramsey's would be away during the day on 26th and would be at home during the night. Especially since they were set to depart afterwards. That is a narrow window!
To know that the Ramsey's are from Atlanta originally.
To know that there would be no dog at the residence.
To know that John Ramsey had $118,000 bonus.
To know that JAR would not be home this
To know that Burke Ramsey kept a knife hidden.
To know that Patsy came down that particular flight of stairs...
..etc.
To be able to find that basement in the first place and know there was a paintbrush for the garrotte.

That's not true at all. Someone who crept in during the Christmas open house and remained in the house hidden would have had plenty of time to discover all of those things. And the steps are not that rocket hard to figure out. The kitchen is ALWAYS the hub of any home that has children in it, it wouldn't require even a second of thinking to know that staircase would likely be used.

Ah, the "He did it because he was crazy" argument. The fallback of many inconsistent theories.
Just because your psychopath doesn't mean your not capable of discovering the best way to accomplish your tasks.

Justa a pet peeve here but do you mean "just because you're a psychopath doesn't mean you're not capabable ....:blushing:

 

[2 percent]

These are the kind of assumptions that bother me. Just because WE can't think of a reason doesn't mean there wasn't a reason.

However, it could be that the person entered the house to rob them after they left the house. What easier way could there be to rob a house than to enter during a Christmas open house and linger around and sneak down to the basement to hide.

Then the family leaves and they can casually look through the house instead of breaking in not knowing if the family was home or when they were returning. If someone is getting dressed up to go to dinner they will definitely be out for an hour or two.

Christmas time is a RIFE for burglaries. Everyone knows this, I mean come on didn't you see Home Alone? LOL December is the third highest month of the year for burglaries. The highest being summer when families go on vacation.

Now say the burglar is in the house and looks around John's desk for a safe and sees the receipt for the $118000 and thinks, wow I bet I could get him to pay that, it's a drop in the bucket for a guy like him.

He decides to subdue Jonbenet and then try to get the ransom but he winds up killing her. Why is that such a hard thing to consider?

From attempted burglary to kidnapping to molestation to murder????

Let's be clear here....he didn't just "wind up killing her", he molested her too!

It's hard to believe because while it's easy to see kidnapping/murder, molestation/murder, it's hard to envision kidnapping/molestation/murder and assuming all of this would start as a burglary makes it just that much more unlikely. Quite simply, burglary is psychologically different than kidnapping.

 

[2 percent]

Considering we're not allowed to "Sleuth" anyone by name, it's hard to try to point out suspects. In my opinion the couple that "heard the scream" raises a HUGE red flag to me.

First of all, they lived near by and were close enough to the family to know their plans etc. They probably came during the open house. And they both claimed to have heard something that night and then turned around and changed their story later. Whenever I've seen cold case crimes solved years later the cops usually corner someone because they changed their story.

Why would you BOTH have had the same story and then BOTH changed it. It's very odd to me that people don't realize that by saying they heard something from the house they are in essence giving themselves a false alibi. If they were in their house hearing these noises, they couldn't have been making those noises? Capisce?

What also is interesting is that if this was a real attempted kidnapping, then the perps would need to be able to get in and out of the house undetected and also get Jonbenet away without being noticed. If they planned to take her to their house, it makes sense.

In addition there's always the question of why Jonbenet was killed. If she was able to recognize her abductors then they would have had to kill her.

Some of the comments in the note reek of envy. Who better to envy the Ramseys and mock John for thinking he was the "only fat cat" than neighbors.

I can't believe these two were not really closely investigated. Especially since no one else heard the scream.

Or they embellished at first then backtracked once the media started paying attention to them, pressing them to set their story in stone. This happens a lot where people become the center of attention, like it and try to keep the attention on themselves by inserting themselves in the case.

Like I said, I'm a cynic and will choose the most likely explanation until it is proven to be impossible.

 

[Chewy]

I'd agree with that if ONE of them said they heard her scream. But the wife said she heard her scream and woke up her husband who then said he listened and heard metal on concrete scraping sounds.

What's freaky about this is whoever staged the crime scene tried to make it look like they had climbed out the window. And the metal grate over the window would have made a metal sound on concrete just like he describes hearing.

But the evidence shows that no one climbed out that window. So hello? What are the odds that someone describes something that matched the fake staging? Then takes it back and says he changed his mind?

How do TWO people first report the same story and then BOTH people take it back?

Sorry I find it really suspicious.

 

[Mama2JML]

Too many to list, but I will give you a few.

To know that the Ramsey's would be away during the day on 26th and would be at home during the night. Especially since they were set to depart afterwards. That is a narrow window!

We don't know that this was the first time he entered the residence. It's possible, though. Maybe he just got lucky...

To know that the Ramsey's are from Atlanta originally.

Neither Ramsey is from Atlanta, originally. Mrs. Ramsey was born & raised in another southern state, West Virginia. John Ramsey, to whom the note is addressed, is a northerner, from MI. He's lived there most of his life. Anyone close to the Ramseys would know this.

To know that there would be no dog at the residence.

If he'd watched (stalked) the family, he'd know if the dog might be a problem.

To know that John Ramsey had $118,000 bonus.

Mr. Ramsey's 1995 bonus was ~$118,000, and this lump sum payment was listed on every pay stub from 1996. Who else knew about the bonus? How difficult would it be to discover this? Regardless, we don't know if the $118,000 ransom demand was influenced by Mr. Ramsey's '95 bonus.

To know that JAR would not be home this

Why do you think his presence would have been considered? Anyway, JAR didn't live in the home.

To know that Burke Ramsey kept a knife hidden.

Burke didn't hide a knife. It's doubtful the knife to which you've referred was Burke's at all.

To know that Patsy came down that particular flight of stairs...
..etc.

We don't know if the perp knew the spiral staircase was the most often used path from the upstairs to the downstairs, but it is easily surmisable. Anyone watching the family (a stalker), planning the crime, would be gathering this type of info.

To be able to find that basement in the first place and know there was a paintbrush for the garrotte.

It wouldn't take but a minute or two to find the basement.

The paintbrush? There are more 'question marks' here that you've failed to consider.

Ah, the "He did it because he was crazy" argument. The fallback of many inconsistent theories.
Just because your psychopath doesn't mean your not capable of discovering the best way to accomplish your tasks.

Perhaps you've failed, again, to consider all you should...

 

[2 percent]

But the evidence shows that no one climbed out that window. So hello? What are the odds that someone describes something that matched the fake staging? Then takes it back and says he changed his mind?

From what I remember they claim to hear the scream but told no one for over a week. That's long enough to glean some information about the case from the media, neighbors and other sources.

I think she heard something but not necessarily a scream, was trying to make herself important embellishing some details, then backtracked because she didn't like the attention she was getting.

How do TWO people first report the same story and then BOTH people take it back?

Sorry I find it really suspicious.

If they weren't married, I'd probably be suspicious too.

 

[2 percent]

We don't know that this was the first time he entered the residence. It's possible, though. Maybe he just got lucky...
Neither Ramsey is from Atlanta, originally. Mrs. Ramsey was born & raised in another southern state, West Virginia. John Ramsey, to whom the note is addressed, is a northerner, from MI. He's lived there most of his life. Anyone close to the Ramseys would know this.
If he'd watched (stalked) the family, he'd know if the dog might be a problem.
Mr. Ramsey's 1995 bonus was ~$118,000, and this lump sum payment was listed on every pay stub from 1996. Who else knew about the bonus? How difficult would it be to discover this? Regardless, we don't know if the $118,000 ransom demand was influenced by Mr. Ramsey's '95 bonus.
Why do you think his presence would have been considered? Anyway, JAR didn't live in the home.
Burke didn't hide a knife. It's doubtful the knife to which you've referred was Burke's at all.
We don't know if the perp knew the spiral staircase was the most often used path from the upstairs to the downstairs, but it is easily surmisable. Anyone watching the family (a stalker), planning the crime, would be gathering this type of info.
It wouldn't take but a minute or two to find the basement.

The paintbrush? There are more 'question marks' here that you've failed to consider.

Perhaps you've failed, again, to consider all you should...

I like playing devil's advocate as much as anyone....:banghead:

I see you switching between "stalker" and "insider". Are you advancing a theory that the intruder was stalker-y enough not to be spotted by the Ramseys while hanging around their house close enough to know the dog's pattern of activity?

Are you simultaneously saying he would be insider-y enough to know about an intimate financial detail like the amount of a recent bonus? Because even if John bragged, he wouldn't brag to a stranger...or that dude standing on the sidewalk, dressed like a ninja in stealth mode :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I'm not getting what you're getting at, if you get me?

 

[Chewy]

It could be, apparently she told a friend and the friend reported it to the cops so maybe she was just lying. But the fact that both of the were involved in making up a story is really weird to me.

It could be that they had details from the story and used them in their story. But there's other things that make them suspicious to me as well. I doubt they actually did it, but the idea that an intruder had to be a total stranger isn't really true. This is just one potential idea that shows that.

 

[Chewy]

I like playing devil's advocate as much as anyone....:banghead:

I see you switching between "stalker" and "insider". Are you advancing a theory that the intruder was stalker-y enough not to be spotted by the Ramseys while hanging around their house close enough to know the dog's pattern of activity?

Are you simultaneously saying he would be insider-y enough to know about an intimate financial detail like the amount of a recent bonus? Because even if John bragged, he wouldn't brag to a stranger...or that dude standing on the sidewalk, dressed like a ninja in stealth mode :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I'm not getting what you're getting at, if you get me?

I think what she's saying is that the idea that it's impossible for someone to have gotten these details if they weren't close to the family isn't really true.

If it was a stalker they could have

If it was someone hiding in the house they could have

There's gossip that could have shared.


Since we don't know who did it, we can't rule out what they did or didn't know.

IMHO I think that's what she's saying. Not that all these different things happened.

 

[2 percent]

I think what she's saying is that the idea that it's impossible for someone to have gotten these details if they weren't close to the family isn't really true.

If it was a stalker they could have

If it was someone hiding in the house they could have

There's gossip that could have shared.


Since we don't know who did it, we can't rule out what they did or didn't know.

IMHO I think that's what she's saying. Not that all these different things happened.

But to follow your often stated line of reasoning....there is no proof there was anyone else in the house prior to the murder and precious little proof of anyone else being in the house on the night of the murder. So to theorize a stalker was not only watching them closely and not spotted but also was in the house and didn't leave evidence of themselves is a pretty wild assumption. And it apparently is only based on the assumption a Ramsey couldn't have done it for whatever reason.

 

[lawstudent]

I just can't see this as being a stranger. Random crimes like this almost never happen. Not impossible, but not even on my radar. As someone said, it's not like anyone was noticed acting suspicious. Stalkers are generally pretty unstable and get noticed long before they become violent.

 

[Mama2JML]

But to follow your often stated line of reasoning....there is no proof there was anyone else in the house prior to the murder and precious little proof of anyone else being in the house on the night of the murder. So to theorize a stalker was not only watching them closely and not spotted but also was in the house and didn't leave evidence of themselves is a pretty wild assumption. And it apparently is only based on the assumption a Ramsey couldn't have done it for whatever reason.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt RDI:

An unsourced male DNA profile, unsourced fibers that were not linked to the home nor the residents, an unsourced human hair on the blanket the victim was wrapped in, animal hairs found on the victim & nowhere else in the home, two shoe prints not linked to the Ramseys, handwriting that wasn't matched to any Ramsey, rope, cord & duct tape not linked to the Ramseys, an unsourced backpack, a bat that did not belong to the Ramseys, a knife found on the counter in the basement that was not sourced to the Ramseys...

 

[Tawny]

There are plenty of reasons to doubt RDI:

An unsourced male DNA profile, unsourced fibers that were not linked to the home nor the residents, an unsourced human hair on the blanket the victim was wrapped in, animal hairs found on the victim & nowhere else in the home, two shoe prints not linked to the Ramseys, handwriting that wasn't matched to any Ramsey, rope, cord & duct tape not linked to the Ramseys, an unsourced backpack, a bat that did not belong to the Ramseys, a knife found on the counter in the basement that was not sourced to the Ramseys...

BBM

Can you link these, please? Haven't heard of the backpack. Thanks!

 

[DeeDee249]

The internet is a great thing, but it can perpetuate falsehoods forever. The human hair on the white blanket WAS sourced and found to be a hair from the forearm of PATSY RAMSEY.

The handprint/palmprint on a basement door was found to belong to Melinda Ramsey and unrelated to the crime. There is no telling when it was left.

The Hi-Tec shoe prints were never sourced to a specific shoe, but the parents did lie about BR owning a pair. He did. He told LE himself that he had a pair of Hi-Tec shoes/sneakers with a compass on the laces. One of BR's friends also told police that BR had a pair.
As shoe prints can't be specifically "dated" it would be hard to tie the print to the crime of it did belong to BR- he could have been there anytime. There is also the matter of that being a shoe brand often worn by LE. There is no way to prove it wasn't left by one of the LE walking around that room.
Now..there IS a way to source a shoe print to a specific shoe IF you have the shoe. Had LE had BR's actual shoe, they could have had forensic specialists test the shoe itself against the print- to look for wear patterns, small imperfections and irregularities that belong to ONLY that shoe.
But that didn't happen, so for me, I discount the shoe print completely. What I DON'T discount is the fact that the parents lied about BR owning a pair. I ASSURE you that a mother would remember buying her son a pair of expensive shoes like that that had a compass on them.